Potentially Harmful Therapy and Multicultural Counseling

The divergent discourses between scholars from the potentially harmful treatment and multicultural psychology camps are accurately observed by Wendt, Gone, and Nagata. I argue that the differences in perspectives between the two groups are more about a clash of therapeutic worldviews, that they are often antagonistic to one another, that conversations have been a one-way process (with one side "not wanting to hear"), and that sociopolitical forces play a significant role in preventing a true dialogue from occurring. I conclude that the ultimate harm to groups of color is cultural oppression.Keywords multiculturalism, professional issues, psychotherapy, race/ethnicity, dimensions of diversity "Potentially Harmful Therapy and Multicultural Counseling: Bridging Two Disciplinary Discourses" by Wendt, Gone, and Nagata (2015, this issue) is an outstanding contribution to the field of psychology and mental health treatments. Not only is it a major scholarly undertaking, but it is also beautifully written, clear, and concise. But what sets it apart are the substantive issues they tackle that have for too long remained unaddressed.First, they reveal how major differences in perspectives and orientation between those who have advocated studying traditional therapeutic effectiveness

Section: Pht and Mcp: Worldview Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic Harm and Cultural Oppression

Sue

2015

“…If we can develop a similar clarity about the goods that inform the PHT and psychotherapy literatures, this would create a very powerful domain of overlapping interests for the dialogue that Wendt et al (2015) are attempting to initiate between PHT and MCP scholars. MCP scholars are also quite clear about the intersubjectivity of the goods they are pursuing.…”

Section: The Complementarity Of Harms and Goodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wendt et al (2015) noted this important contrast between PHT and MCP scholars but did not propose a way to bridge this difference. First, we approach the topic of harms and benefits as complements that must be understood through contrasting these paired terms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Harms

Fowers

Anderson

Lefevor

et al. 2015

Wendt, Gone, and Nagata raise some very important questions about harm in psychotherapy and initiate a valuable dialogue between scholars of potentially harmful therapy and multicultural counseling and psychotherapy. This comment enlarges upon the authors' view that harms cannot be understood independently of goods by providing an argument that goods have an inherent place in psychotherapy and in multicultural viewpoints. The goods of psychotherapy (e.g., justice, respect) are ordinary and widely endorsed rather than esoteric or objectionable. Identifying these goods makes it possible to organize them into a coherent hierarchy that enables an integration of the primarily individual goods of standard psychotherapy and the primarily communal goods of a multicultural perspective. This can facilitate a mutually informative and enriching dialogue between scholars from these two domains. The hope is to encourage a more open discussion of the goods of psychotherapy, thereby fostering a more reflective, progressive discipline.

“…In beginning to bridge the separate discourses of multicultural counseling and potentially harmful therapy (PHT), the work of Wendt, Gone, and Nagata (2015) provides a thoughtful contribution. Given the indicators that these two areas of scholarship reside in the somewhat separate silos of counseling and clinical psychology, we are pleased to see this manuscript appearing in The Counseling Psychologist in an effort to start a vital dialogue in our field regarding PHT and multicultural counseling.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We believe that this contribution raises important issues as well as critical questions regarding ethics, clinical practice, and research. Wendt et al (2015) are to be commended on conceptualizing the ways in which the literatures in multicultural counseling and PHT can and need to inform one another. Critically reviewing the work of Lilienfeld (2007); Barlow (2010) ;Castonguay, Boswell, Constantino, Goldfried, and Hill (2010); and Dimidjian and Hollon (2010) to recognize strengths and limitations, and in turn to start to examine the missing multicultural and contextual components, is laudable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multicultural Counseling Meets Potentially Harmful Therapy

Davidson

Hauser

2015

This reaction includes an appraisal of contributions, limitations, and questions raised in Wendt, Gone, & Nagata's major contribution regarding potentially harmful therapy (PHT) and multicultural counseling. The authors are commended for initiating a convergent dialogue between the PHT and multicultural counseling literatures, creating a strong argument for their integration, and contextualizing the prior division. Commentary is provided in response to the narrow emphasis on an ethnoracial domain of culture, and suggestions for broadening the PHT/multicultural counseling dialogue through inclusion of multiple identities and intersectionality are provided. Greater integration of specific ethics codes and guidelines is also encouraged. Finally, future directions for consideration and study are posited, including the practicalities of researching harm within an integrated PHT/multicultural counseling framework, the necessity of working toward a refined definition of harm, and the manner through which the multicultural counseling perspective on addressing culturally based injury could augment existing PHT efforts to mitigate harm.